Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it is gated by "your location access and its history limit," and it discloses the time zone used for the day boundary. This is genuine extra value, though the failure mode when access/history is insufficient is left unstated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, and the second sentence carries the access constraint rather than filler. Nothing is redundant, though it is dense to the point of terseness in places.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return, and it does so concretely (points, first/last fix, distance). Combined with the access/history caveat and time-zone note, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the user_id meaning is left undocumented.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 50% schema coverage, the date parameter is already documented (YYYY-MM-DD, default today) and user_id is undocumented in both places. The description contributes the meaningful semantics that the day is interpreted in the workspace's time zone and that a single technician is required, which partially compensates for the missing user_id documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource and scope ("One technician's movement on a day") and enumerates the return payload: time-ordered points, first/last fix, distance covered. It's clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts itself with close siblings like technician_locations or technician_jobs, so an agent must infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by "on a day" and the single user_id, giving an agent a reasonable sense of when to call it (per-tech daily movement). However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., technician_locations for current position), so the routing decision is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.